Well I stand corrected. My problem with real isn't that they offer it. It's that they were using real exclusively. It's promising that they're beginning to offer open formats. Just before Christmas I was looking for a clip that I heard driving home from work b/c I wanted to look up some more info on the story, and all they had was real media. For an audio broadcast that just makes no sense at all. Real might be far and wide, but if you want farthest and widest for audio, you go with mp3. Plus there's multiple players available, some from companies that don't have a history of violating their own privacy as real does.
For video it's a bit harder, but I would think that the best option would be provide more than one format. If they're starting to do that, that's great.
I don't trust the CBC's objectivity. Nor should you. Not to mention the fact that the CBC is a corporation. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
You don't trust a single news source. You trust a variety of sources.
The role of government should be to lower the barriers of entry into the news media field. So if you think the news is not reflecting an important viewpoint... Start a news media organization.
I like the CBC (well cbc radio is great and the tv is acceptable) but outside of that Canada's press is ridiculously unfree
Hear Hear!! Well apart from your implication that the CBC represents a free press and all that.
So any suggestions to improve the situation? I say bring in the outside news sources. Screw the CRTC I want to be able to get foreign media in my living room. That means fox news, BBC 1&2 and whatever else we want. (Assuming that the BBC is willing to sell us the signal).
As for the apparent contradiction between liking the BBC and disliking the CBC, I have no problem if someone else wants to spend potential education funding on making government sponsored news. They're welcome to. It's a viewpoint and I'd like to hear it. If I was a Brit resident I'd have a big problem with that, but it's not my money.
Oh, and the CBC is great for many things. (Love the music on Radio 2) Just not for the news.
The problem is that you're still looking for an unbiased news source. It doesn't exist. News sources are biased because people are biased. Get your news from multiple sources. Funding a single bias from tax revenue is a bad idea. There are better things to spend tax revenue on, and diversity of news is better anyway.
CBC is under no onus to be entertaining... it will exist whether or not anyone watches it
Nope. If the CBC is not watched by enough people support for continuing it's funding will dry up and it will be cut. So you bet they are concerned about viewership.
And I do live in BC, so I know that Canadians are generally left wing. I don't have a problem with the CBC's views. I have a problem with funding a single viewpoint and calling it balanced. I don't care what view they're pushing it's not a good idea. I just hope I'd have the wisdom to recognize this if I always agreed with everything they said. Giving me a truckload of tax revenue to promote my ideas would be a bad idea too.
Okay I've been smacked for offering up something I vaguely remembered without a source. I was hoping someone else might remember it and be able to provide some more info or even an actual source. Silly me.
Having said that, this marks the first time in my life I've been accused of owning a tin-foil hat. I feel so proud.
Anyway... Forget the little unsubstantiated memory. I think my criticism still stands. The CBC has a bias, (like every other news source and human being).
Getting funded by someone puts you in their debt.
The fantasy that government funding makes you unbiased is just that. A fantasy.
Oh, and they're welcome to vote for whoever they like. It would be a bad idea to fund a single news source from limited government revenue no matter who they voted for.
It's already been pointed out that the CBC is a corporation and that they have editorial policies and editorial direction like every other news source.
Where do you think Corporate Policy comes from? From the people who run the corporation! That's why supporting a single corporation like the CBC is a bad idea. You need diversity. Funding a single editorial direction from tax revenue is wrong.
And I did read your post. But you're simply wrong about the idea of more free discourse. Bias doesn't come from profit. It comes from people. That's your error.
Now that I think about there's a problem with saying "left wing" instead of "leftist". Left wing implies a Right Wing, a Left Wing and a balanced view in the centre. A nice pretty picture to be sure, but also total crap. There's a lot more complexity to points of view than a sliding scale.
Leftist might have the same problem but less so I think. It does still carry the meaning of "instinctively anti-corporate, pro big-government social engineering, pro higher tax, etc.)
Well you could always go to CBC Watch, but they're biased too of course.
The CBC is biased because they're human. Unbiased reporting is an impossibility. So how is the CBC biased? Well they're not biased towards a pro-Missile Defense, George Bush should get a third term viewpoint. I tend to think they've got a "left-wing" bias, but if you want to point out a different bias feel free. I've been criticized in this discussion for using the word "leftist" (some see it as perjorative). Of course "left wing" implies a Right Wing, a Left Wing and a balanced view in the centre. A nice pretty picture to be sure, but also total crap. There's a lot more complexity to points of view than a sliding scale. So where in the plethora of biases is the CBC? If you don't think it's leftist I'd be interested to hear where you think it is.
Of course there's varability between reporters at the CBC. But there's less variety of views within the CBC than there is within the profession of journalism as a whole because the CBC is a single corporation. They have editorial policies and editorial direction like every other news source. The problem isn't that the CBC has a viewpoint. It's that it's government funded and it has a viewpoint. Of course viewpoints are a function of being human so you can't take that out. As this poster said much more clearly than I will, the very concept of unbiased news is a sham.
Giving government support and tax revenue to a single viewpoint is not a good idea. That's the problem.
HREF=CBC Watch might be a good place to look. Of course they along with the CBC and I have their own biases. The most obvious evidence that they have a bias is that the CBC is staffed by human beings. As this poster said much more clearly than I will, the very concept of unbiased news is a sham.
Get your news from many sources. Don't fund a single source from the tax payer pocket. There are better things to spend a limited tax revenue on.
Where did I say that CNN was critical of the US government? They may or may not be, that's not the point. The point is that they are not government controlled run. Whether or not they agree with the government too much is a completely different issue. I'm talking about levels of control. North Korea? Lots of it. CBC? Slightly beholden to government because they're dependent on the government for funding. (He who controls the purse strings...) CNN? Not government funded. So less government control.
If you want an example about how financial dependency makes you beholden to someone, look at Health Care in Canada. It's a provincial matter according to our constitution, but the Federal Government controls the purse strings. So strangely enough the Federal Government has a bit of influence over health care. Or if you want a more down to earth example try accepting a big loan from your parents or inlaws to buy a house. Debt
True, we don't say "rightist. We do say "right wing" as in "Fox News has a right wing bias". I suppose I could have said "left wing". Either or. No perjorative intended.
well I certainly do regret bringing up that vignette from my memory. I certainly wouldn't take my statement as gospel if I were you, but I mentioned it in the hope that someone else might also have heard the same thing and have more information. Then we might actually get a source for it. If it were a good study it would be a very compelling argument.
As for everything else you said... You're right. A single source of news is a bad idea. My beef was with the idea that the CBC is a source of unbiased news. I am so tired of hearing that.
I watch and listen to the CBC regularly. Of course I'm not foolish enough to trust the CBC for all my news, I read the NY Times, the Globe and Mail, The Independent (British), and I go to web for a lot more news... the Washington Post, CNN, GoogleNews, etc. and when I want to discuss I go to Slashdot, Kuro5hin & Gauntlet. Diversity... That's the key. State run media? Not so diverse.
Left is not a pejorative. It's a bias as you say. The CBC has a leftist bias.
Whats special about commercial insterest is commercial interest.
And that's the crux of the issue... I think that a strongly held viewpoint is a bias. You seem to think that it's an especially big problem if it's a corporate viewpoint. You're wrong. Corporations are composed of people. People's viewpoints are... people's viewpoints.
State funded media is no less biased than any other media? WHY? Because they have no special ability to stand apart from their point of view than any other person.
If you like to think they're more successful at eliminating bias that's fine, but you're fooling yourself. All you can do is come up with "I think an unbiased view is X... Wow! That's exactly what the CBC says. They must be unbiased!
Just because reality is biased to the left doesn't mean the CBC is.
hahahahaha...
Reality is biased towards the left... Of course, why didn't I see it before... Non-CBC ideas are the result of bias are CBC ideas are not biased because... well it's the CBC!
Dont' be a silly twit. The CBC has a bias as does every other news source. Bias is not an inherent problem if people are wise enough to recognize they are biased and they cannot completely correct for that. The problem is that the CBC uses taxpayer money to promote one view. Then people like you have the arrogance to claim that it's not bias it's just that the CBC is right.
The issue isn't freedom. It's bias. The CBC conceivably *could* say anything it liked. The problem is that it doesn't because it has leftist corporate culture that supresses anything else.
You said "Commercial interests are anethma to worthwhile broadcasting". What's so special about commercial interests that makes them so evil above someone else's political views? Nothing unless you think that Noam Chomsky provides a fair and balanced assessement of the world.
State funded media gives an unfair advantage to one point of view, (in Canada's case the leftist bias of the CBC), at the expense of diversity of views.
oh right... I'm sorry, I forgot. It's only when you're corporate funded that you become a shill for the corporate raiders of globablization. When you get funded by the "government" (not by taxpayers mind you), you become enlightened and lose your biases.
The CBC is not as closely run by the Canadian government as Radio North Korea, and it does criticize the government, but it's a lot more closely run by the government than say CNN. If you rely on a single group/person for a good chunk of your cash you become slightly run by them whether you like it or not.
Of course the bigger issue is the fact that the CBC is a ludicrously biased news organization masquerading as the source of balanced news all the while receiving dump truck loads of cash from tax payers. I don't remember where I heard this, but someone did a little research a while back to find out who would be the Canadian government if only CBC employees got to vote. Answer: Majority NDP Federal government. No bias in the news here, move along...
I'll believe the CBC is being tech sensible when they stop using Real Media exclusively from video & audio clips. Supported by tax dollars and they still won't use anything else... gah!
As someone who doesn't illegally rip material, I'm starting to find all the DRM stuff annoying.
Now that's seriously messed up. What on earth is illegal ripping? I assume that you're in the US and you're stuck with the DMCA, but that doesn't make it any better. There are serious problems with letting file sharing systems like Bit-Torrent and eDonkey, operate freely, but ripping material off media that you own should not be illegal. Media is easily damaged, and that's why I rip my CD's. I didn't used to do this, and now I've got CD's that skip without any backup.
To my mind ripping media that you physically borrow from your friends should also be legitimate, as that's the habit that many people grew into from the VHS days. And if I recall correctly the massive market from home video sales grew quite nicely despite this form of copying. Incidentally I believe that that's how at least part of the copyright law in Canada works for music CD's. I can borrow my friends CD, copy it and give him back the original with no foul. Although interestingly enough if he copies his CD and gives me the copy, he's broken the law even though the end result is the same. I used to think that this demonstrated the silliness of IP law in Canada, but if you think about it, that allows people to continue to share stuff with close friends, but it shuts down any large scale networks of "friends" as most people wouldn't want to trust their original media to just anyone. There are a lot of messed up ideas about IP in Canadian law, but that seems to be a fairly well thought out part of the law.
I seem to recall that at one point Xenu.net was the top link on a google search for Scientology. Am I mistaken? Anyone who hasn't had a look at Xenu.net really should. I don't know if they mention the bet Hubbard had with Robert Heinlein, (who actually wrote good sci-fi), but that's worth a gander too.
To believe that God used evolution to create the world, you have to call God a liar.
No you don't, but forget all those "a day is like 1000 years" arguments. Those tend to be based on people doing textual analysis on a translation. Not a good idea. You want deep analysis? Go as close to the source as possible. Now I don't have Dr. Watt's full text on the subject, (I think this book goes into detail, but I'm not sure.). I've been looking for a brief version of his argument, but I can't find it. The website where I orginally got it is not responding. Sorry. The lectures was called "On the Edge of the Millenium: Making sense of Genesis 1". I saw him lecture at TWU a few years back. If you can find the material, it's very intresting.
This entire thread is a troll, (do you see any reference to creationism or Intelligent Design in the article?) but here goes...
You make an interesting point about the lack of a clear dividing line between Micro & Macro evolution. The main premise of Intelligent Design of course is that each of the progressive steps are themselves examples of macro-evolution.
Michael Behe wrote a rather compelling book on the subject in which he argued that while the steps appear to be micro steps when looked at from Darwin's perspective, when we look at the biomechanical nature of cells (something that Darwin couldn't do due to lack of sufficient technology) those steps are in fact large macro steps.
Basically Behe states that any mutation that is not beneficial will be lost over time as the animal with the mutation will be less likely to survive to pass on its genes. Behe argues that the biochemical structure of cells consists of many independent parts none of which are beneficial by themselves. And since they're not beneficial, they are harmful since the cell must expend energy supporting those structures. Only in combination do they confer any benefit, but the simultaneous mutation of all of those independent parts is not possible. (In the same sense that Darwinists would recognize that a dog mutating into an intelligent biped in a single generation is impossible). Behe's argument is that what we thought were small intermediate steps are not in fact anything of the sort. Behe goes a step farther and states that cell structures are not reducible into small steps. (The phrase irreducably complex is the term I believe).
Someone earlier suggested that Intelligent Design did not qualify as science because Intelligent Design does not present a falsifiable hypothesis. It seems to me that the main thrust of Intelligent design is the counterpoint to a hypothesis. They are making a claim to have falsified the hypothesis of Evolution. (Large scale change over time type evolution). Behe makes the claim that biological cells are irreducably complex and cannot be arrived at by random mutation. That seems falsifiable to me.
Slashdot Mirror
For video it's a bit harder, but I would think that the best option would be provide more than one format. If they're starting to do that, that's great.
You don't trust a single news source. You trust a variety of sources.
The role of government should be to lower the barriers of entry into the news media field. So if you think the news is not reflecting an important viewpoint... Start a news media organization.
Hear Hear!! Well apart from your implication that the CBC represents a free press and all that.
So any suggestions to improve the situation? I say bring in the outside news sources. Screw the CRTC I want to be able to get foreign media in my living room. That means fox news, BBC 1&2 and whatever else we want. (Assuming that the BBC is willing to sell us the signal).
As for the apparent contradiction between liking the BBC and disliking the CBC, I have no problem if someone else wants to spend potential education funding on making government sponsored news. They're welcome to. It's a viewpoint and I'd like to hear it. If I was a Brit resident I'd have a big problem with that, but it's not my money.
Oh, and the CBC is great for many things. (Love the music on Radio 2) Just not for the news.
CBC is under no onus to be entertaining... it will exist whether or not anyone watches it
Nope. If the CBC is not watched by enough people support for continuing it's funding will dry up and it will be cut. So you bet they are concerned about viewership.
And I do live in BC, so I know that Canadians are generally left wing. I don't have a problem with the CBC's views. I have a problem with funding a single viewpoint and calling it balanced. I don't care what view they're pushing it's not a good idea. I just hope I'd have the wisdom to recognize this if I always agreed with everything they said. Giving me a truckload of tax revenue to promote my ideas would be a bad idea too.
Having said that, this marks the first time in my life I've been accused of owning a tin-foil hat. I feel so proud.
Anyway... Forget the little unsubstantiated memory. I think my criticism still stands. The CBC has a bias, (like every other news source and human being).
Getting funded by someone puts you in their debt. The fantasy that government funding makes you unbiased is just that. A fantasy.
Oh, and they're welcome to vote for whoever they like. It would be a bad idea to fund a single news source from limited government revenue no matter who they voted for.
Where do you think Corporate Policy comes from? From the people who run the corporation! That's why supporting a single corporation like the CBC is a bad idea. You need diversity. Funding a single editorial direction from tax revenue is wrong.
And I did read your post. But you're simply wrong about the idea of more free discourse. Bias doesn't come from profit. It comes from people. That's your error.
Leftist might have the same problem but less so I think. It does still carry the meaning of "instinctively anti-corporate, pro big-government social engineering, pro higher tax, etc.)
But still. No perjorative intended. I mean that.
The CBC is biased because they're human. Unbiased reporting is an impossibility. So how is the CBC biased? Well they're not biased towards a pro-Missile Defense, George Bush should get a third term viewpoint. I tend to think they've got a "left-wing" bias, but if you want to point out a different bias feel free. I've been criticized in this discussion for using the word "leftist" (some see it as perjorative). Of course "left wing" implies a Right Wing, a Left Wing and a balanced view in the centre. A nice pretty picture to be sure, but also total crap. There's a lot more complexity to points of view than a sliding scale. So where in the plethora of biases is the CBC? If you don't think it's leftist I'd be interested to hear where you think it is.
Sorry, messed the link. CBC Watch.
Giving government support and tax revenue to a single viewpoint is not a good idea. That's the problem.
Get your news from many sources. Don't fund a single source from the tax payer pocket. There are better things to spend a limited tax revenue on.
If you want an example about how financial dependency makes you beholden to someone, look at Health Care in Canada. It's a provincial matter according to our constitution, but the Federal Government controls the purse strings. So strangely enough the Federal Government has a bit of influence over health care. Or if you want a more down to earth example try accepting a big loan from your parents or inlaws to buy a house. Debt
True, we don't say "rightist. We do say "right wing" as in "Fox News has a right wing bias". I suppose I could have said "left wing". Either or. No perjorative intended.
As for everything else you said... You're right. A single source of news is a bad idea. My beef was with the idea that the CBC is a source of unbiased news. I am so tired of hearing that.
I watch and listen to the CBC regularly. Of course I'm not foolish enough to trust the CBC for all my news, I read the NY Times, the Globe and Mail, The Independent (British), and I go to web for a lot more news... the Washington Post, CNN, GoogleNews, etc. and when I want to discuss I go to Slashdot, Kuro5hin & Gauntlet. Diversity... That's the key. State run media? Not so diverse.
Left is not a pejorative. It's a bias as you say. The CBC has a leftist bias.
State funded media is no less biased than any other media? WHY? Because they have no special ability to stand apart from their point of view than any other person.
If you like to think they're more successful at eliminating bias that's fine, but you're fooling yourself. All you can do is come up with "I think an unbiased view is X... Wow! That's exactly what the CBC says. They must be unbiased!
hahahahaha...
Reality is biased towards the left... Of course, why didn't I see it before... Non-CBC ideas are the result of bias are CBC ideas are not biased because... well it's the CBC!
Dont' be a silly twit. The CBC has a bias as does every other news source. Bias is not an inherent problem if people are wise enough to recognize they are biased and they cannot completely correct for that. The problem is that the CBC uses taxpayer money to promote one view. Then people like you have the arrogance to claim that it's not bias it's just that the CBC is right.
You said "Commercial interests are anethma to worthwhile broadcasting". What's so special about commercial interests that makes them so evil above someone else's political views? Nothing unless you think that Noam Chomsky provides a fair and balanced assessement of the world.
State funded media gives an unfair advantage to one point of view, (in Canada's case the leftist bias of the CBC), at the expense of diversity of views.
The CBC is not as closely run by the Canadian government as Radio North Korea, and it does criticize the government, but it's a lot more closely run by the government than say CNN. If you rely on a single group/person for a good chunk of your cash you become slightly run by them whether you like it or not.
Of course the bigger issue is the fact that the CBC is a ludicrously biased news organization masquerading as the source of balanced news all the while receiving dump truck loads of cash from tax payers. I don't remember where I heard this, but someone did a little research a while back to find out who would be the Canadian government if only CBC employees got to vote. Answer: Majority NDP Federal government. No bias in the news here, move along...
So for all you Canucks out there... Tivo doesn't so much work in Canada, so what do you all use for your PVR option?
As someone who doesn't illegally rip material, I'm starting to find all the DRM stuff annoying.
Now that's seriously messed up. What on earth is illegal ripping? I assume that you're in the US and you're stuck with the DMCA, but that doesn't make it any better. There are serious problems with letting file sharing systems like Bit-Torrent and eDonkey, operate freely, but ripping material off media that you own should not be illegal. Media is easily damaged, and that's why I rip my CD's. I didn't used to do this, and now I've got CD's that skip without any backup.
To my mind ripping media that you physically borrow from your friends should also be legitimate, as that's the habit that many people grew into from the VHS days. And if I recall correctly the massive market from home video sales grew quite nicely despite this form of copying. Incidentally I believe that that's how at least part of the copyright law in Canada works for music CD's. I can borrow my friends CD, copy it and give him back the original with no foul. Although interestingly enough if he copies his CD and gives me the copy, he's broken the law even though the end result is the same. I used to think that this demonstrated the silliness of IP law in Canada, but if you think about it, that allows people to continue to share stuff with close friends, but it shuts down any large scale networks of "friends" as most people wouldn't want to trust their original media to just anyone. There are a lot of messed up ideas about IP in Canadian law, but that seems to be a fairly well thought out part of the law.
No you don't, but forget all those "a day is like 1000 years" arguments. Those tend to be based on people doing textual analysis on a translation. Not a good idea. You want deep analysis? Go as close to the source as possible. Now I don't have Dr. Watt's full text on the subject, (I think this book goes into detail, but I'm not sure.). I've been looking for a brief version of his argument, but I can't find it. The website where I orginally got it is not responding. Sorry. The lectures was called "On the Edge of the Millenium: Making sense of Genesis 1". I saw him lecture at TWU a few years back. If you can find the material, it's very intresting.
You make an interesting point about the lack of a clear dividing line between Micro & Macro evolution. The main premise of Intelligent Design of course is that each of the progressive steps are themselves examples of macro-evolution.
Michael Behe wrote a rather compelling book on the subject in which he argued that while the steps appear to be micro steps when looked at from Darwin's perspective, when we look at the biomechanical nature of cells (something that Darwin couldn't do due to lack of sufficient technology) those steps are in fact large macro steps.
Basically Behe states that any mutation that is not beneficial will be lost over time as the animal with the mutation will be less likely to survive to pass on its genes. Behe argues that the biochemical structure of cells consists of many independent parts none of which are beneficial by themselves. And since they're not beneficial, they are harmful since the cell must expend energy supporting those structures. Only in combination do they confer any benefit, but the simultaneous mutation of all of those independent parts is not possible. (In the same sense that Darwinists would recognize that a dog mutating into an intelligent biped in a single generation is impossible). Behe's argument is that what we thought were small intermediate steps are not in fact anything of the sort. Behe goes a step farther and states that cell structures are not reducible into small steps. (The phrase irreducably complex is the term I believe).
Someone earlier suggested that Intelligent Design did not qualify as science because Intelligent Design does not present a falsifiable hypothesis. It seems to me that the main thrust of Intelligent design is the counterpoint to a hypothesis. They are making a claim to have falsified the hypothesis of Evolution. (Large scale change over time type evolution). Behe makes the claim that biological cells are irreducably complex and cannot be arrived at by random mutation. That seems falsifiable to me.
What are your thoughts?